Open Choke is the nom de plume of an anonymous oil and gas industry executive.
Open Choke's ideas and opinions do not necessarily represent the ideas or opinions of Drillinginfo.com, its owners, or employees.
Visit www.drillinginfo.com!

May 23, 2010

Arizona and Godwin's Law...

Believe it or not, I am trying to figure out where I stand on the whole immigration brouhaha spotlighted by Arizona's recent legislative efforts. While researching the many facts of this issue, I was exposed to something called "Godwin's Law",http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law, which states that "The first person in a debate to associate the opposite position to (Nazi/Hitler/Fascism) automatically loses the debate".

I thought, and still think, this is both funny and a good rule of thumb, albeit one I break from time to time.

Here are some facts of the Immigration/Arizona debate:

1. Arizona's law mimics Federal law, and the conditions by which law enforcement can "ask for papers" are in the case of a "legitimate arrest, questioning, or detainment" for the enforcement of laws other than immigration laws. Opponents say that the law gives law enforcement authorities the capability of questioning people for "walking around while brown", as our President so eloquently stated last week. Proponents state that this KEEPS law enforcement from improperly questioning for "walking around while brown". Thus, diametrically opposite conclusions from the same fact set. Clearly, the intent of the wording was to prevent questioning of people merely because of their ethnicity, otherwise it wouldn't have been addressed at all in the law, so apparently the difference between the two conclusions merely reflect ones opinion on how well the existing language protects against illegitimate questioning of Hispanic-looking individuals.

2. The Arizona law, in substance, only mimics the Federal law already on the books. If one is legitimately opposed to the substance of the Arizona law, then one must be opposed to the Federal law. The potential hippocrites, then, are the Senators and congress people that voted FOR the Federal law and protest AGAINST the Arizona law.

3. The Feds have said they are not obligated to prosecute people under turned over to them by state officials for violations of Federal law in Immigration cases. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/21/official-says-feds-process-illegals-referred-arizona/. Also, the Feds are apparently not obligated to prosecute or repatriate undocumented aliens, even if detained by Federal officials. This allows the Feds to do, essentially, whatever they want, ie the law as written allows the Feds to either detain, arrest, and deport undocumented immigrants or NOT detain, arrest, and deport undocumented immigrants, depending upon how they feel that day, week, month, or administration. This means the law was intentionally written in a way to NOT be law. The concept of "Rule of Law" is meaningless if laws are written in a way that they are entirely subjective and arbitrary. I don't think this concept of law can be supported by any left or right ideology, can it? Was the passage of this Federal law nothing more than venal political theater? If so, who is responsible for that?

4. Undocumented immigrants presumably come here for jobs. We are told that the jobs they take are low wage jobs that no US citizen would want. The obvious benefit of this is that these workers keep our society's cost of living low, and, depending on industry, without them, these costs would rise up to 30% or more. The benefits are primarily in construction, maintenance, and hospitality. In other words, by taking low wage jobs (perhaps lower than minimum wage in many cases), they keep our cost of living down, which serves exactly the same effect as increasing income for the rest of us.

5. Another benefit is that they pay money into dummy social security accounts from which they they will not recover benefits, thus enabling our currently unstable social security system to be further supported from the "fruits of labor" of our undocumented brethren.

6. If these are the primary cases for non-enforcement, what reason would we have to want to "legalize" these jobs? Would "legalizing" these folks entail mandatory minimum wage? Union representation? If that is the result, don't the "benefits" disappear?

7. Or is the defining argument a Human Rights argument due to our current constitutional interpretation that if you are born in the US, you are automatically a US citizen. Thus, when an undocumented parent is deported, the family can be potentially split. Of course, the splitting of the family is only one of two potential outcomes, the other being the family going back with the deported member. Although I think I understand why a US citizen or legal worker would not want to return with their undocumented spouse or parent, the individual choices made typically appear to support that being in the USA is more important to them than family cohesion.

8. Undocumented immigrants are apparently very much over-represented in our prisons as violent criminals. Why is that? What does that mean for those that fit the stereotype of "looking for a better future"? What is the relative percentage of each end-member demographic? What can we do to reduce the criminal component? This is a hard issue to dismiss, if true.

9. Clearly the US CAN protect its borders and sovereignty. The question is cost and will. Given that we are adequately terrified of Islamic terrorists, and we guard our airports and immigration stations at airports to a degree considered ridiculous by many (including me), what is the logic behind making an entirely physical border porous otherwise? Is the fear of Islamic terrorism hugely overstated and propagandized? Alternatively, what is the logic behind the kabuki theatre of airport security? The reality is that illegal immigration has evolved from the story book families looking for a better tomorrow to a very well organized international system of undocumented human transport into the US from all over the world, and where Mexicans are no longer the overwhelming majority of those transported (see these previous posts for a 1st and 2nd hand perspective on this....)

Does this image concern you at all? Should we ignore this and the attendant crime?

10. Another conservative bogeyman is the Reconquista Movement. Is there merit to this concern? Who, exactly, constitutes this movement and how many are there? Are they merely a radical fringe element in numbers like the KuKluxKlan or is this a real movement? If it is, have any of these folks actually LIVED in Mexico?

11. Given the very tough immigration laws that Mexico "enjoys", what reason, other than economic ($21 billion per year of US dollars wired to families in Mexico, the second largest legally recognized industry in Mexico next to petroleum and the third biggest real industry next to drugs and petroleum and bigger than tourism... interesting really, that Mexico depends on illegal immigrants and illegal drugs as the 1st and 3rd largest industries), could Calderon have for making the speech he did to the US Congress? How can he claim Human Rights when Mexico's immigration and work laws are far more draconian to non-citizens than the US's? It would be nice to have someone admit that yes, it is primarily an economic issue between the two countries rather than a clearly ludicrous Human Rights issue.

12. Do legal residents and citizens of Hispanic heritage, many of which predated Anglos, and, indeed US and Mexico, in Texas, NM, Arizona, and California, relate more strongly to the plight of the illegal immigrants or to sovereignty and benefits of US citizenship? For either answer, why?

If I have left anything out, please let me know. Let's get a discussion going on this to help me decide what I think is the best solution....

Comments

Thanks for one of the best summaries, that I've seen, of the issues involved. I'd like to see some of this clear thinking among our politicians.

My 1 cent worth for the discussion:

#1-3: Supporters make the "racist" claim because it's easy to make and requires the opposing argument to counter that charge first, before a discussion can be made. It's also inflammatory enough to make the news (and derail the conversation,) while reasonable discussion isn't.

I think that various groups have their reasons for not wanting the laws enforced. Some of these may even tie into the weakening of identification requirements for voting.

#4: In today's economy I think you'd find a surprising number of people who would take "those jobs that nobody wants," even at sub-minimum wage.

#5: Since most illegals are paid "under the table" (how can they be legally hired?) how does any of that money make it into the social security system? I suspect that even the money deducted from any wages they receive, as illegal labor, is pocketed by the employer. Otherwise there's a paper trail proving their guilt in hiring the illegals.

I think their "paying into the system" is mostly a statement of fiction used by supporters and that very little money makes it into the system from these people. Sales tax and usage fees are proably the only monies that do.

#6: Union representation would give the unions a larger membership and more money. The workers would likely see little benefit, unless fully legalized. I think some unions are opposed to the illegals due to competition.

#8: As you say, below, there are a few more people than just "hard working job-seekers" coming across the border. Terrorists, human trafficers, drug runners, and various criminal gangs. Some of them are these guys. And then, of course, there are likely to be a few petty criminals along with the "job-seekers."

#10: from what I've heard, the Reconquista Movement is real enough, but I have no idea how big it really is.

#11: The US also has some pretty tough entry requirements for legal immigrants. Visa requirements are actually enforced. Interesting that the law would be so much tougher on legals than the illegals. Why do people trying to obey the law get so little support?

Also interesting is that so many countries have tough standards for legal immigrants and much tougher ones (that are actually enforced) for illegal immigrants.

#12: I've heard that legal immigrants tend to be opposed to illegal immigrants for two reasons. COmpetition and the view that they've paid their dues, why should the illegals get the free ride?

Personally, I think there should be a guest worker program of some sort. People can come in, for a specified period of time, and subject to the same requirements as citizens face when getting a driver's license (prints, photo, etc.) When their time is up they leave, just like any other legal visitor, subject to appropriate actions if they don't.

Obviously laws against illegal entry would have to be enforced, and steps woiuld have to be taken to close off the border except for legal entry points.

They would then be able to receive legal protections, pay into the system, and so on. We would be far better able to track them, just like legal citizens. They get to work, assuming anyone is hiring, and we get to stop calling them illegal workers/immigrants. We'd also have some chance to stop the really bad ones from coming through.

Naturally a lot of human trafficers (coyotes) would be put out of work, but do we care about them?

I think there is a bigger issue at hand here than just the law. This is really a continuance of the long fought and often lost constitutional battle over States' rights. This case will most likely make it to the Supreme Court. This is really a trial for the validity of States' rights. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Federal Government, then the precident is set to make States's rights nothing more than a pedantic joke.

The founders set up our government to keep most of the power at the State level for a reason. The idea was that what was appropriate for New York might not coincide with what was appropriate in other States, like Arizona. The idea was that you could vote with your feet. Ever since day 1, the federal government has been slowly and surely encroaching on States' rights to the point that they are almost nonexistant.

People call Arizona's law racist, most to inflame the situation, but most people do not realize the enourmous trouble the open border is causing. Most people are unaware that Phoenix is #2 in the world for kidnapping (interstingly second only to Mexico City). The illegal presence has caused massive financial strain on the State as they receive social benefits but do not contribute taxes.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the clearly written 10th amendment of the Constitution (which would be a refreshing change). If you do not like the Arizona law, then move to California, I hear those IOU's are really working out great...can you say bailout?